For example, I just did a TST scan of 100NL FR NLHE 40-100.

1479 seats at 170 tables.

There are ~600 seats who have players playing 5 tables or less, mostly with <100bb stacks who I have <100 hands on. I'm going to assume that the vast majority of these are recreational although there are a few pro-shorties in there. There are 18 by my count converting ~50 of those seats to reg seats

Scrolling up in # tables from there are a total of 12 <100bb <100 hand players playing 6+ tables for a total of another ~100 rec seats. The rest see a dramatic increase in number of hands I have on them as well as standard TAG/nit/pro-shorty stats and >200 hands.

So that's roughly a 650/830 rec/reg seat split, best case since I'm thinking those 100 rec seats could very well be unknown pro-shorties, with the average rec playing 3 tables by my estimate making 217 rec players, and the average reg playing 11-12 tables for 72 regs. Player pool is 289 players by those numbers, 75% recs + 25% regs. If it is in fact a 550/930 split then it's 183 recs to 81 regs for 70%/30%.

So lets apply 70/30 player pool split to Zoom table limits assuming regs can keep up to 4 and recs can't handle more than 1:
70*1 = 70 seats
30*4 = 120 seats
1.7 regs for every 1 rec, therefore at a 9 handed table it would be 5.67 regs and 3.33 recs.

70*1 = 70 seats
30*6 = 180 seats
2.6 regs for every 1 rec, therefore at a 9 handed table it would be 6.5 regs and 2.5 recs.

Thank you for taking the time and doing the math. My post was'nt meant as an offence. But i played 2 weeks of rush before they closed down and it was a very nitty thing. It didnt even feel like 2 fish per table (for 10NL at this time). So maybe the recreatianal players aren't that much atracted by this format and so the ratio was not that good. Even 2:1 would be wonderfull in my eyes...

Great post JH1. I beleive stars has even stated its very difficult to get a .net customer over to a .com depositing player. I beleive stars is coming out with prepaid top up cards in the UK which might bring over some recreational players.

Keep in mind that by the nature of being able to just fold ****ty hands and getting a new one instead of being bored waiting for the next is going to create a dynamic where some of the recs that are marginally "tight" -- 26/6 FR type -- are going to become significantly tighter resulting in the appearance of worse ratios.

Who cares about ratios? Everyone is going to be playing tighter. The fish will be less fishy and the regs will become nittier. The overall level of play will rise simply from the field having better hand selection. Playing 6 tables just allows you to play more hands and win more money by taking advantage of that nitty dynamic Rush/Zoom brings. If you don't like the idea of playing against regs you're going to hate it because a huge portion of people maxed out at 4 tables in Rush. Good thing is that most of the regs can't play that many hands without playing like ****.

And upping the max to 6 allows more hands to be played per stake, which generates more rake.

^ Given the Pokercast statement by Steve that they want to encourage more action in their games, which was part of the stated reason behind the WC switch, and it's obvious that more tables = more rake while less tables = more action due to better ratios, like I said, it's a balance between volume and ratios.

If you just take the rake and hands/hour side of this, there's no reason to put any limits on Zoom at all. So the existence of the table limit already shows that the ratio does matter.

If I'm reading this right @NL100 FR the player pool is 75% recs and 25% regs? That doesn't seem right or is the difference between 200nl+ and 100 that extreme?

You may very well be right I have no idea what the Rec:Reg ratio is at 100nl but that seems like an awful lot of rec players, maybe I just read that wrong?

Can you compare 200nl FR?

need to release product as people are thinking too much itt

Would love the zoom 500K guarantee $22 dollar buyin

70 regs, 30 recs

You do need a limit regardless. For example, if there's only a couple hundred people in a pool, you can't have some guys sitting at 16 tables. If you played Rush, you'll already understand why.


But since these Zoom pools will likely be much, much larger than what Rush was pushing, the table limit could also increase.

zoom zoom zoom hey hey hey ya
zoom zoom zoom hey hey hey ya
zoom zoom zoom hey hey hey ya

If I remember correctly, Rushpoker was released on a tuesday.

I'm very serious.

At 2-4nlh and 1-2nlh on Rush the majority of players were not playing only 1 table. Maybe micros were different.

If Zoom was capped at 4 entries across all limits I'd be very disappointed, but I'm sure it will only be capped per limit, which I think is fine... there were a lot of regs playing 6-8 tables of Rush on Full Tilt and playing quite laggy. I used to find 8 a bit much, but 6 was fine, 4 and I was getting bored.

Any news on MTT/SNGs for ZOOM Poker yet????? like the ones they had on FTP hope there is cannot wait if so.

Release this **** so I can start planning my Canada move.

its coming out before Thursday baring some unforsaken miracle imo

question: what is the timebank for zoom tables comparable to.... fast speed tables or normal speed or slower than both?..

p.s i meant in terms of the time b4 the time bank activates

OMG it's tuesday!!!! Zoom must be out today then!!!

Tard.

late this week does not mean tuesday... gosh

didn't he say mid week? or was it late? if he said late its going to be like sunday 11:59pm or something lol

No zooooooooooom news ? Please release roooooooooooom.

...and taken away on a Friday if I'm not mistaken.

ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

My guess is with next server restart. If I'm not mistaken some other promo ends also at that date.

ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

ITS ALL CONNECTED!